If It Ain’t Broke, Don’t Fix It

If the client does not report something to be a problem, or if they describe a problem they’ve solved, no further intervention is required. This may seem basic, even obvious, but there are therapeutic approaches that don’t follow this principle. When I was new to SFT, I was working at a community mental health center providing in-home family therapy. One of the requirements of the job was participating in weekly clinical supervision meetings with the team of practitioners and supervisors. My colleagues in the group practiced traditional, problem-focused approaches to therapy, and often questioned my SF methods. A frequent topic in our staff meetings was the idea of seeing clients for “maintenance,” or developing strategies that would facilitate the client “growth.” Although these are appropriate ideas from a problem-focused perspective, the thought that clients need to continue therapy for maintenance and growth is totally incongruent with SFT.

If It Works, Do More of It

One of the ideas that most appeals to me about SFT is the presumption that everyone is doing something well in their lives. This simple belief communicates hope, respect, and optimism to the client. It is rooted in the idea that no matter how serious a problem may be or how long the client has struggled with it, there must be something that person is doing well in their lives, some inherent trait that can be brought to bear to accomplish a positive change. Some years ago, I was conducting a group for parents of children involved in the local county’s drug program. On the first night of the program, the group members introduced themselves, offering information about their occupations and details of their family. One mother identified herself as a local high school teacher who worked with the school’s most difficult children. She said that she was in the group because her own children did not follow her rules at home, and she was clearly upset by it. When another parent asked how a mother was able to get the kids in her classroom to listen to her, the mother’s demeanor changed immediately. She explained the system that she used in her classroom and how effective it was for her. Several of the other parents began taking notes, believing clearly that this woman was the one who knew how to motivate teens, but she simply forgot to take those skills home with her. By the end of the meeting, the mother had created a plan to use her classroom skills at home with her own kids. She’d come to the group stressed and frustrated, but she’d also come carrying the solution. She just didn’t realize it. In identifying for herself the things she does well and giving herself permission to do more of those things, she was able to develop an effective solution to a problem she’d been struggling with for sometime.

If It’s Not Working, Do Something Different

Please note the word different, not better. This is an important distinction to understand this tenet of SFT. A common misconception of this approach is that it is problem solving. On the contrary, it is solution building, and a solution is only a solution if it works (de Shazer et al., 2007). This may seem obvious, but many people repeat the behaviors that don’t work simply because it’s the way they were taught or the way they’ve always done things. This tenet asks the therapist to consider efficacy. If a task is not effective then there’s no reason to continue with it. Other options should be explored.

This idea is very different from the thinking of practitioners who operate from other theoretical perspectives. For example, in my clinical staff meetings at the community center, one of the regular procedures was reviewing interventions that had been developed by the therapists for their clients’ families. Each therapist would present a case summary and outline tasks developed in the previous sessions. It was common that the group would offer feedback to the presenting therapist without considering the most important question: Did the intervention work? There seemed to be more concern into how “creative” the intervention was or how “right” it seemed. But from the SF perspective, if the intervention is not effective then it should be discontinued. It’s just that simple.

Small Steps Can Lead to Big Changes

It is widely accepted that problems can snowball, that is, they can start off small and grow bigger with time. Solutions can behave in the same way, although that fact is not as widely accepted. This is what makes practicing SFT so rewarding for me. More often than not, people come into therapy with a problem they’ve been wrestling with for a long time. They come with a hope—but not often with the belief—that the problem will be overcome. If at the end of the session, often the first session, a simple task is given to make things slightly better then the confidence can be built. An emphasis on moving slowly in simple steps makes a future resolution seem more achievable. The growth of hope is a common result.

Solution Is Not Necessarily Directly Related to the Problem

While working at the community center, one of my supervisors insisted that for a therapist’s intervention to be effective, it must be directly related to the problem, and therefore, a thorough examination of the problem is required. SFT takes a different view—and very little or no time is spent exploring the problem (de Shazer et al., 2007). SFT tosses the traditional problem/solution approach out the window and begins by identifying how the clients’ lives would look without the problem (de Shazer et al., 2007). Once this has been established, a plan to create a life without the problem can be developed using the client’s own skills and resources. More often than not, the solutions developed aren’t directly related to the problem.

Once I worked with a business woman who was experiencing tremendous stress at work. She was a high-ranking executive who had previously enjoyed her job, but was now dealing with a new boss and having a hard time with new demands that were suddenly being placed on her. Thinking about her situation from the perspective of my former supervisor, a solution might have been developed that was related directly to her work or her relationship with the new boss. Instead, after a careful examination of how her life would look without a problem, a potential solution became clear.

She used her own skills and past successes to develop a strategy that proved to be quite effective for her, yet was not directly related to her job situation. Instead of focusing on somehow fixing the relationship she had with her boss she decided to focus on her family. She began to take time each night to spend time with her kids and husband. Often times as few as 15 minutes, and make sure she shared a few moments of what she called, “smiles.” Almost immediately this simple strategy allowed her to enjoy her job.

The Language of Solution Development Is Different From the Language of Problem Description

SF practice differs from other therapeutic approaches in its use of solution building rather than problem solving. The language of solution building is positive and forward-looking, whereas the language of problem solving is negative and backward-looking (George, Iveson, & Ratner, 2006). Rather than delving into the past problem, SFT asks that the clients look ahead to what their lives will be like when the problem is behind them—instead of sitting in traffic cursing the roadblock ahead, visualize the open road that lays beyond it.

First Principles

As we’ve seen, the SF process is simple. However, there is difficulty in understanding the difference between information that is our business, which requires the therapist to be curious, and information that is not our business, which requires the therapist to remain silent. That takes discipline and focus. What follows are the principles a therapist can keep in mind to increase discipline and focus.

It Is So Simple, It Is Almost Complicated

This phrase may seem like an oxymoron, but the SF approach to counseling is so simple and basic that sticking to it can be a challenge. Steve de Shazer (1985) explained that the process of developing interventions should follow a principle known as Occam’s Razor, which holds that, all other things being equal, the simplest solutions are best. This idea applies equally well to the other steps of solution building. Solution building is a process of minimalism and simplicity. Although many of us may have spent years in graduate school learning how to identify and assess problems, and how to solve them using various counseling techniques, the only skill the SF therapist needs to build solutions is the ability to ask the next question.

Solution Building Is Based on Turn-Taking

Solution-building conversations must be co-constructed with input from all participants. To ensure that the conversation is equally co-constructed, each person involved must contribute to it equally. This can be a challenge with couples since it means that three people will be taking turns. To visualize this idea in a couple’s therapy session, imagine that each partner has a paint brush that’s been dipped into a color, red for one partner and blue for the other. Each time a partner answers a question, they put a stroke of paint on a canvas—the longer the response, the longer the stroke. At the end of the session, there should be an equal number of red and blue strokes. The strokes will be of unequal length, and it’s possible that one color will dominate, but the number of red and blue strokes should be the same. That can happen only if each partner gets a turn to answer every question posed by the therapist.

Every Couple Is Motivated by Something

Motivation should never be in doubt, even if one member of the couple claims that he or she is only there because the other partner “made” them come to therapy. The idea of resistance to therapy has simply never made sense to me. How can I consider anyone who has sought out therapy (even if mandated), scheduled an appointment, and followed through by attending the session, to be resistant? I once heard Chris Iveson say that one of the things that he enjoys most about practicing SFT is that all of his clients are motivated. In watching Iveson’s practice, it was clear to me that he treats each of his clients as if their motivation was not a question—no matter what it is. Making this presumption is crucial in conducting solution-building conversations with couples. The simple fact that the couple makes it into your office suggests that they were driven to do so by a desire for some form of change or a hope for some preferred outcome. When the therapist is able to make that change or preferred outcome part of the conversation, the couple’s motivation becomes quite apparent—and grows as the conversation progresses.